Sabine and free will

Thread Starter

atferrari

Joined Jan 6, 2004
4,424
Yesterday I run across this video by Sabine Hossenfelder.

Not sure about the consistency of her reasoning where the most relevant argument for me to be in doubt with, is here at 4:53

Sabine free will.gif

But then, was it true that there is no free will, a disheartening thought for me, what I am doing here, asking this question as a simple marionette (or is it a muppet?) left alone here by who created all this (even Sabine)?
 

jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
11,088
Oops, your video doesn't play. If it is just that simple statement, I don't see where laws of nature interact with free will. That is, individual or even collective actions have very little impact on how the Sun will evolve and a few billion years.
 

Thread Starter

atferrari

Joined Jan 6, 2004
4,424
Oops, your video doesn't play. If it is just that simple statement, I don't see where laws of nature interact with free will. That is, individual or even collective actions have very little impact on how the Sun will evolve and a few billion years.
Hola John,

The image was to show the sentence summarizing the point; click on "this video"

Yesterday I run across this video by Sabine Hossenfelder.
 

jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
11,088
Sorry, I missed the link in your post and am spoiled by just clicking on a video to see it.

Her argument is circular. The fact that you do something removes the possibility of having done something else. Unless there is the ability to change the future, going back in time doesn't help. We all know now that the Vulcan high council determined that time travel to the past is not possible. :) It's unresolvable..
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
16,773
This is a philosophical question which has no easy answer. It is wrapped up with a number of other questions about the existence of a supreme being and what her intentions might be. For me it comes down to whether the future is deterministic or not. With a deterministic future, free will is not impossible, just irrelevant.
 

Thread Starter

atferrari

Joined Jan 6, 2004
4,424
Her argument is circular. The fact that you do something removes the possibility of having done something else.
That is my feeling. Maybe we are part of the carrousel (Sabine included) so we cannot verify the options left behind, if any at all. Players cannot be umpires of the same game.

This is a philosophical question which has no easy answer. It is wrapped up with a number of other questions about the existence of a supreme being and what her intentions might be. For me it comes down to whether the future is deterministic or not. With a deterministic future, free will is not impossible, just irrelevant.
That brings me back to my old idea of the universe being such a humongous finite state machine that we, minuscule parts of it, cannot qualify other than chaotic. IIRC, have read somewhere in the past, that chaos could be defined as that.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
8,648
It's a question we currently can't answer like your typical 'faith' question as it supposes we know more than we actually do. If I were to clone you exactly down to the last static particle it would still not be you, only a dead corpse. To exactly clone you requires knowing what we currently think is impossible, perfection of measurement for every possible combination of force interaction. QM asserting a fundamental limit to the accuracy with which the values for certain pairs of physical quantities of a particle can be predicted does not automatically allow for freewill but if we obey perfectly the known laws of physics there will always be uncertainty of 'Will' (direction) at some level within us like a rudder on a ship, it directs a turn but not exactly.
 

justtrying

Joined Mar 9, 2011
434
Interesting, without watching the video, i fully believe in free will as with experience of my life so far I am fully aware of some decisions and choices I have made and why I have made them. Perhaps it can be argued that it is predestiny, but I look at where I am right now and it is good. When I evaluate look at life of other people around me, i can see why they have made their choices.

I have come to a conclusion that what drives us is Ego and Fear. I believe we can look back at some options that could have been for those bigger splits. But not all of us are capable of doing it.

I find it interesting that people trying to find a way to not be responsible for their life choices.

edit: i can really tell I had a headache when I wrote this :( Not fixing the mistakes... Free will and all...
 
Last edited:

bogosort

Joined Sep 24, 2011
678
People who believe we have no free will are a fascinating lot, that's for sure.

Science hasn't a clue what consciousness is, but it can tell you you don't have free will...
Science doesn't have anything to say about "free will". I write that phrase in quotes because it means different things to different people. But whatever version you're specifically referring to (if you even have a precise sense of what that may be), science neither affirms nor denies it. In the long history of humanity, nothing's changed in this regard: the best we can do is make logical inferences from woefully imperfect information.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
26,398
I think she's just spouting technobabble. She wants to believe something and so she is stringing words together trying to "prove" her position but, when all is said and done, her argument is that she is right because she is right and anyone that does not agree with her is obviously wrong. No different than many religious arguments (not all religious arguments, some of which are very well reasoned).

I always wonder what her position would be if someone runs into her car and causes her severe injury and perhaps kills someone she cares about. Will she support their argument before a court that they should receive no penalty of any kind since, according to her, that the accident was going to happen was established with absolute certainly in the first moment of the big bang? We should turn lose everyone in any prison or mental institution regardless of any consideration because how can is possibly be equitable to hold any of them responsible for something that was going to happen anyway?

If everything is going to be what it is and we have no influence on it, then what is the point of her making that video? By her own reasoning, it can't change anyone's mind or educate anyone or have any influence whatsoever.

One of her arguments is that people that talk about what might have happened had someone made a different choice is meaningless because we have no proof that making a different choice was ever a possibility. Well, that exact same argument applies the other way -- she has no proof that making a different choice wasn't ever possible, so talking about how it wasn't possible is just as meaningless.

In another parallel with many religious opinions is an extreme amount of hubris. Of all the varied positions on this topic, none of which, according to her, were arrived at through reasoned thought but rather by the initial conditions set forth in the Big Bang, the one that she just happened to end up with just happens to turn out to be the right one.
 

BobTPH

Joined Jun 5, 2013
3,652
I think you are all missing her point. Science is based on the premise that the behavior of physical objects strictly follows discoverable laws. Free will requires that some non-physical entity can override these laws. The two ideas are logically incompatible.

Bob
 

BobTPH

Joined Jun 5, 2013
3,652
I always wonder what her position would be if someone runs into her car and causes her severe injury and perhaps kills someone she cares about.
You clearly didn’t watch the video because she does discuss the issue of responsibility and punishment.

Bob
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
8,648
I think you are all missing her point. Science is based on the premise that the behavior of physical objects strictly follows discoverable laws. Free will requires that some non-physical entity can override these laws. The two ideas are logically incompatible.

Bob
Tell that to the scientists with theories about impossible to prove multi-universes, 11 dimensional strings, this universe being a simulation (controlled by a supernatural being?), etc.... Impossibility of proof and the need for faith in beautiful mathematical foundations are not scientific limitations today.

 

BobTPH

Joined Jun 5, 2013
3,652
Tell that to the scientists with theories about impossible to prove multi-universes, 11 dimensional strings, this universe being a simulation (controlled by a supernatural being?), etc.... Impossibility of proof and the need for faith in beautiful mathematical foundations are not scientific limitations today.
Huh? What does that have to do with what I said?

What you perhaps do not know is that Sabine’s claim to fame is her own rants against the very same things you are objecting to. I think you might like her if tou got to know her!

Bob
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
8,648
Huh? What does that have to do with what I said?

What you perhaps do not know is that Sabine’s claim to fame is her own rants against the very same things you are objecting to. I think you might like her if tou got to know her!

Bob
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/beauty.150513/

I'm very familiar with her. Which is why I think her comments about 'free will' are a little odd because IMO they are non-testable beliefs she normally rants about.
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/beauty.150513/post-1293300
 
Last edited:

jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
11,088
I think you are all missing her point. Science is based on the premise that the behavior of physical objects strictly follows discoverable laws. Free will requires that some non-physical entity can override these laws. The two ideas are logically incompatible.

Bob
Do you believe anything can be random?
 

BobTPH

Joined Jun 5, 2013
3,652
Depends on what the meaning if random is. If you mean things can violate the laws of physics, no. If you mean there are things that cannot be predicted even with perfect information, yes. But note that that does not imply it is not deterministic.

Bob
 
Top